[Mb-civic] FW: Europe ¹ s Ritual Dance

[Golsorkhi]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Shahla Samii <shahla at thesamiis.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:44:57 -0500
Subject: Europe¹s Ritual Dance



November 29, 2004, 9:13 a.m.

Europe¹s Ritual Dance
The Western counterpart of Iran¹s deception.



The European "solution" to the threat of Iranian atomic bombs bids fair
to join the "peace process" as the most boffo running gag in the
history of show biz. Every few months, the elegantly dressed diplomatic
wizards from London, Paris, and Berlin race across a continent or two
to meet with Iranians dressed in turbans and gowns, and after some
hours of alleged hard work, they emerge with a new agreement, just like
their more numerous counterparts engaged in the peace negotiations. The
main difference is that the peace-process deals seemed to last for
several months, while the schemes hammered out with the mullahs rarely
last more than a week or two. Otherwise, it's the same sort of
vaudeville routine: a few laughs, with promises of more to come.

The latest Iranian shenanigan may have set a record for speed. On
Monday they announced they had stopped the centrifuges that were
enriching uranium. On Tuesday they asked for permission to run the
centrifuges again. The Europeans sternly said no. The next scene will
be at Turtle Bay, with brief interruptions for somewhat off-color
remarks about sexual harassment at high levels (so to speak) of the
United Nations.

No serious person can believe that the negotiations are going to block,
or even seriously delay, the Iranian race to acquire atomic bombs. The
European posturing is the Western counterpart of the Iranian deception,
a ritual dance designed to put a flimsy veil over the nakedness of the
real activities. The old-fashioned name for this sort of thing is
"appeasement," and was best described by Churchill, referring to
Chamberlain's infamous acceptance of Hitler's conditions at Munich.
Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonor, opted for the
latter, and got the former as well. That is now the likely fate of
Blair, Chirac, and Schroeder.

  They surely know this. Why do they accept it?

  They accept it for many reasons, of which two seem paramount: They
have huge financial interests tied up with the Iranian regime (billions
of dollars worth of oil and gas contracts, plus other trade agreements,
some already signed, others in the works); and Iran is the last place
in the Middle East where they can play an active diplomatic role. This
is particularly acute for France, which knows it will long be a pariah
to free Iraqi governments, and views Iran as its last chance to thwart
America's dominant role in the region. Sad to say, there is no evidence
that the Europeans give a tinker's damn either about the destiny of the
Iranian people, or about Iran's leading role in international
terrorism, or about the Islamic Republic's joining the nuclear club.
They are quite prepared to live with all that.

  I think they expect Iran to "go nuclear" in the near future, at which
point they will tell President Bush that there is no option but to
accept the brutal facts ‹ the world's leading sponsor of terrorism in
possession of atomic bombs and the missiles needed to deliver them on
regional and European targets ‹ and "come to terms" with the
mullahcracy. In other words, as the editorialists at the Wall Street
Journal have wryly commented, the real goal of the negotiations is to
restrain the United States, which, left to its own devices, might
actually do something serious. If President Bush found a way to prevent
Iran from acquiring atomic bombs, it might well wreck the Europeans'
grand appeasement strategy.

There is certainly no risk that the United Nations will do anything
serious, which is why the Europeans keep insisting that it is the only
"legitimate" forum for any discussion of the Iranian nuclear menace.

  At the same time, I rather suspect that the Europeans, like many of
our own diplomats, would be secretly pleased if someone else ‹ that is
to say, Israel ‹ were to "do something" to rid them of this problem.
When they whisper that thought to themselves in the privacy of their
own offices or the darkness of their own bedrooms, they mentally replay
the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, an
attack they publicly condemned and privately extolled. They would do
the same tomorrow, sighing in relief as they tighten the noose around
Israel's neck. Rarely has the metaphor of the scapegoat been so
appropriate: the burden of our sins of omission loaded onto the
Israelis, who are then sacrificed to atone for us all.

This may seem sheer wishful thinking, but wishful thinking is an
important part of foreign policy. The idea that "we don't need to do
anything, because so-and-so will do our dirty work for us" has in fact
been central to Western strategy in the Middle East for quite a while.
For example, it was practiced by Bush the Elder in 1991 at the end of
Desert Storm, when the president openly mused that it would be simply
wonderful if the Kurds and Shiites overthrew Saddam Hussein. They tried
it, foolishly believing that if things went badly the United States
would support them. But Bush the First was quite serious about his
wishful thinking, and stood by as Saddam slaughtered them ‹ the
scapegoats of the hour ‹ by the tens of thousands.

Similar wishful thinking is now at the heart of European ‹ and probably
a good deal of American ‹ strategic thinking about the Iranian nuclear
project. That it is a disgusting abdication of moral responsibility and
a strategic blunder of potentially enormous magnitude is both obvious
and irrelevant to the actual course of events.

  I do not believe Israel will solve this problem for us, both because
it is militarily very daunting and because successive Israeli
governments have believed that Iran is too big a problem for them, and
if it is to be solved, it will have to be solved by the United States
and our allies. Whether that is true or not, I have long argued that
Iran is the keystone of the terrorist edifice, and that we are doomed
to confront it sooner or later, nuclear or not. Secretary of State
Powell disagreed, and he was at pains recently to stress that American
policy does not call for regime change in Tehran ‹ even though the
president repeatedly called for it. And the president is right; regime
change is the best way to deal with the nuclear threat and the best way
to advance our cause in the war against the terror masters. We have a
real chance to remove the terror regime in Tehran without any military
action, but rather through political means, by supporting the Iranian
democratic opposition. According to the regime itself, upwards of 70
percent of Iranians oppose the regime, want freedom, and look to us for
political support. I believe they, like the Yugoslavs who opposed
Milosevic and like the Ukrainians now demonstrating for freedom, are
entitled to the support of the free world.

  Even if you believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, is it not
infinitely better to have those atomic bombs in the hands of
pro-Western Iranians, chosen by their own people, than in the grip of
fanatical theocratic tyrants dedicated to the destruction of the
Western satans?

And maybe it isn't inevitable. Faster, please.

---
  ‹ Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the
author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident
Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
---
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200411290913.asp

------ End of Forwarded Message